Ahh, the old negative pregnant. On top of supposed unconstitutionality, this law is just bad precedent.
- Status
Ahh, the old negative pregnant. On top of supposed unconstitutionality, this law is just bad precedent.
Personally i can't see any benefit to a peaceful law abiding muslim by allowing Sharia law to be used in our court system. Also, there are so many different variations to Sharia law that it would only serve to convalute the legal system even further. If something relating to religious practice becomes a legal matter, the only laws being used are our criminal laws and the constitution. Were they practicing their constitutional right to religion within the boundaries of our laws in this country. Thats it.
I do agree with one major point tho, this should apply to ALL religions. I definitely wouldn't want to see some crazy Christian extremist to be able to swing some Old Testament law around in court (i.e. stoning gays or killing a rapist and the woman that was raped). Alot of the big religions have alot of violent, antiquated and barbaric law practices in them and i would hate to see any of that used in our supposedly civilized court system.
I do agree with one major point tho, this should apply to ALL religions. I definitely wouldn't want to see some crazy Christian extremist to be able to swing some Old Testament law around in court (i.e. stoning gays or killing a rapist and the woman that was raped). Alot of the big religions have alot of violent, antiquated and barbaric law practices in them and i would hate to see any of that used in our supposedly civilized court system.
Ahh so we agree - except that I wouldn't so much call it wrong as unconstitutional. 
Another thing - I believe it's been argued before unsuccessful that "respecting" a religion (which is prohibited), means that you cannot make a law which FAVORS one religion over another, but there's no prohibition on making a law which is UNfavorable to, or denounces or denigrates a particular religion (such as this one here). IIRC, this argument has been shot down by saying the "respecting" has a broader meaning that just "favor" - and regardless, anytime you're DISfavoring one religion, you are by default, necessarily favoring all the others, which is prohibited.
Well, I'm not sure if there is nor not - there certainly could be, just as the spinoff Mormon sect which believes in plural marriages would most certainly benefit from the courts applying their law over that of the states' criminal codes - and plural marriage is most certainly not violent (it's "peaceful"), but it's also illegal in all 50 states I believe. Similarly, I'd bet that there are at least a few non-violent things which muslims would advocate for, which are prohibited by law.
Anyhoo, I figured this would stir some things up, and it did - needs to be discussed though - back to work...
Another thing - I believe it's been argued before unsuccessful that "respecting" a religion (which is prohibited), means that you cannot make a law which FAVORS one religion over another, but there's no prohibition on making a law which is UNfavorable to, or denounces or denigrates a particular religion (such as this one here). IIRC, this argument has been shot down by saying the "respecting" has a broader meaning that just "favor" - and regardless, anytime you're DISfavoring one religion, you are by default, necessarily favoring all the others, which is prohibited.
Well, I'm not sure if there is nor not - there certainly could be, just as the spinoff Mormon sect which believes in plural marriages would most certainly benefit from the courts applying their law over that of the states' criminal codes - and plural marriage is most certainly not violent (it's "peaceful"), but it's also illegal in all 50 states I believe. Similarly, I'd bet that there are at least a few non-violent things which muslims would advocate for, which are prohibited by law.
Anyhoo, I figured this would stir some things up, and it did - needs to be discussed though - back to work...
I was getting at this:
And if these guys...
...really want to get the Muslim's proverbial goat (no hidden goat diddling joke intended) the best thing they could do is become more socially liberal.
SQ755 does not just single out Islamic law, it bans the use of all international law too. This is a plus in my book.
If they would expand it to all religious law, that would be better.
The international law thing is a tricky subject that I'm not qualified to weigh in on. I haven't heard an educated argument either way. I can see a case for citing decisions from other countries with similar legal systems, but my gut instinct is that it's a bad idea.
E: After searching the Web quickly, I found an excerpt from Justice Kagan's testimony that makes a pretty good case for citing international law in some situations. However, I think that the issue would never come up at the state level.
As far as I know, none of the other religions are trying to impose their law on other countries. Yet Islamic law is now being used in several western countries to decide cases involving Islamic people including Canada.
Yeah...
Kind'a like the 16th amendment (income tax) getting passed based on promises that only rich fat cats in the NE would ever have to pay it. Regular folk would never have to pay income tax.
Remote like that?
In the case of bannng all international law, yeah, there is no reason we should start allowing other countries laws in our courts. We have our own law as a country, we don't need any backseat direction from another country.
If you want to live by their laws, live there, not here.
If you want to live by their laws, live there, not here.
There is nothing in the constitution that speaks to seperation of church and state. The seperation issue derives from Thomas Jefferson and his interpretation of the 1st and how it relates. A whole lot of people don't agree with him.
This is what the 1st amendment says about religion:
Establish is the gotcha'. It's a really slipper slope.
Is giving one religion tax exempt status and not another establishment?
How about giving money to a church school? Allowing prayer in schools or making participation in a morning prayer mandatory? What about making certain commercial practices verboten on Sundays?
And on and on and on.
Major slippery slope and one that has caused not a little heart ache in the good ole US of A in the past 60 years or so.
And it seems some source of wrong thinking re: SQ 755 which has little to do with regards to seperation of church and state.
Re 755: What the question is really about is prohibiting the use of international law as precedent in a state court. The argument has been made that if there is no US or State precedent to guide a decision then what is wrong with using international law? Maybe nothing but IMO, having traveled the world over and seen every level and type of society from total scumbucket to about as civilized as you can get I can say with some authority that the society we live in is fairly unique. Any precedent set in our courts needs to be set based on the norms of our society and not those of some other.
That said: sharia law is one of those scumbucket things I mentioned. Pure barbarism - and I don't give two cents or a rat's behind what any so called enlightened liberal and relative moralist thinks. They're WRONG!
I for one will be voting for 755!
This is what the 1st amendment says about religion:
Establish is the gotcha'. It's a really slipper slope.
Is giving one religion tax exempt status and not another establishment?
How about giving money to a church school? Allowing prayer in schools or making participation in a morning prayer mandatory? What about making certain commercial practices verboten on Sundays?
And on and on and on.
Major slippery slope and one that has caused not a little heart ache in the good ole US of A in the past 60 years or so.
And it seems some source of wrong thinking re: SQ 755 which has little to do with regards to seperation of church and state.
Re 755: What the question is really about is prohibiting the use of international law as precedent in a state court. The argument has been made that if there is no US or State precedent to guide a decision then what is wrong with using international law? Maybe nothing but IMO, having traveled the world over and seen every level and type of society from total scumbucket to about as civilized as you can get I can say with some authority that the society we live in is fairly unique. Any precedent set in our courts needs to be set based on the norms of our society and not those of some other.
That said: sharia law is one of those scumbucket things I mentioned. Pure barbarism - and I don't give two cents or a rat's behind what any so called enlightened liberal and relative moralist thinks. They're WRONG!
I for one will be voting for 755!
- Status
Similar threads
